Who has Kompetenz-Kompetenz, the Nation States or the European Union?
The first of these set of three articles dealt with how the EU could follow, as laid down in the constitution of the USA and give itself the power to make all the people bound within all 27 Nation States, (real) citizens of the European Union. Since Lisbon, instead of having a ‘complimentary’ citizenship, Lisbon gave us an, ‘additional to’, in other words a duel Citizenship. It is so easy to remove the former.
The second of the these three articles did, I hope, show, still following the USA Constitution, just how the EU could eventually prevent any state from ever leaving the EU through following the history of the USA.
I have no idea if any of this will ever come into actual fact, I am just showing how it can or might be done. I see no point in any of the EU Treaties at all, each one removing authority (sovereignty) in areas which would have been better left with the Nation States, if what I see for the future, is not to be. Never, for the life of me, will I understand WHY any British MP, that WE have stupidly elected has deliberately transferred the main Governing of their own Country to foreigners in the European Union, destroying their own Country in the process. The complete death of this once great Country with no hope of resuscitation. Strangled to death by EU legislation and competitions laws. (Drama Queen!)
Germany is the largest Country in the EU. It has the most votes in the EU and it therefore has the loudest and strongest voice. It has the strongest and most important Leader in the EU. It is therefore, to the Judgement of the German Court on the Treaty of Lisbon that I now turn to. Setting the scene for that case in the Court, I quote from the complainants, “Efforts were directed towards the foundation of United States of Europe and towards the creation of a European nation. It was intended to establish a European federal state through a Constitution. This was already made clear by the Congress of Europe, held in The Hague in 1948,” I now move forward to the Treaty of Lisbon, “The symbols of the European Union - flag, anthem, motto, currency and Europe day - are not mentioned. However, 16 of the 27 Member States, among them the Federal Republic of Germany, emphasise in Declaration no. 52 on the symbols of the European Union, which is annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Lisbon, that these symbols “will for them continue as symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it”.
The document is very, very long and there are many points in it that should be drawn to your attention, there are however, far too many and too long for me to place here. I just mention a couple. “In the view of the complainant re III. the Treaty of Lisbon transgresses the boundary of what the principle of sovereign statehood permits as regards the transfer of sovereign powers. The complainant argues that the European Union becomes a subject of international law and can act like a state on the level of international law. It is said to be provided with a foreign-policy machinery that has a quasi-state nature to the outside, and with far reaching foreign-policy competences. European Union law is said to have unrestricted primacy over the law of the Member States, also over the Basic Law, with the consequence that review by the Federal Constitutional Court is excluded. The European Union is provided with the competence to decide on its own competence (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) (Article 48.6 and 48.7 TEU Lisbon; Article 311, Article 352 TFEU) and with the competences for internal security and prosecution, it has entered core areas of statehood”. “Apart from state authority, the European Union is said to also have a state territory, namely the area of freedom, security and justice, and a state people. The European Parliament is said to no longer be composed of representatives of its Member States, but of representatives of the Union’s citizens. The evolution of the European Union into a federal state is said to transgress the responsibilities and competences of the Federal Republic of Germany.”
“In the opinion of the complainant re IV., the polity that has been created by the Treaty of Lisbon is factually not an association of sovereign national states (Staatenverbund) based on international agreement. Instead it is said to be a “large federation with its own legal personality”, which acts like a state of its own, with its own legislative bodies, its own authorities and its own citizenship of the Union. The competence for the approximation of laws in the fields of criminal law and law of criminal procedure is said to concern a core area of state authority because nothing embodies the exercise of sovereign competences more strongly than the right to shape substantive criminal law and to enforce it procedurally. The question of whether and how a state defends itself is also said to be a decisive aspect of a state’s statehood.”
As we know already each of the points put before the Court were, one by one refuted, rebutted, unfounded or quite plainly dismissed as nonsense. “The Federal Government also takes the view that the constitutional complaints re III. IV. and V. are inadmissible (aa), at any rate, however, unfounded (bb).”
“The reference to the Union’s citizens in Article 14.2 TEU Lisbon is said to emphasise their position as the subject of legitimisation of the European Union without constituting a European people. The primacy of application of Union Law, which is the subject-matter of Declaration no. 17, is said not to confer statehood on the Union but to solely emphasise the character of the European Union as a legal community. The declaration, which does not form part of the normative part of the Treaty, is said not to change the existing legal situation and not to result in a fundamental priority of Union law over the national constitution. The right to withdraw from the European Union is said to be contrary to the assumption of the European Union’s statehood; the European Union is said to have no competence to perform coercive or enforcement measures”.
In fact, “The Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon is said to be compatible in particular with the principle of democracy.” And, “The Treaty of Lisbon is said to neither result in the creation of a Union state nor to weaken the statehood of the Federal Republic of Germany. It is said to avoid any terminological allusion to statehood, and also the recognition of the legal personality of the European Union is said not to provide any indication for this. The free right of withdrawal is said to confirm the continued existence of state sovereignty. The Member States are said to remain the “masters of the Treaties” and are said not to have granted the European Union Kompetenz-Kompetenz. The principle of conferral is said to continue to apply. The use of the flexibility clause is said to be subjected to substantive requirements and procedural safeguarding mechanisms by the Treaty of Lisbon”.
Looking towards our own Constitution now, I find that, as far as Article 47 “The EU shall have Legal Personality” (this for the first time to the EU as a whole) is concerned, for any agreement of Treaty making powers, no Government in the United Kingdom can sign such an agreement or ratify a Treaty without using the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown. (I note that no mention is made in the Treaty that the Royal Prerogative cannot be used for “War Making”).
It is this same Royal Prerogative therefore that the present Government has given to foreigners in the European Union to use on their behalf. It is not in the government’s gift so to do. Oh there have been attempts to alter the Royal Prerogative brought forward in the Government’s Green Paper, the Governance of Britain, but any change now or in the future does not alter the fact that Government has indeed transferred the Royal Prerogative Powers entrusted in their care at the time of ratification of that Treaty of Lisbon. The Government have been ‘tested’ and found wanting for the Royal Prerogative was for THEM to use only, to treasure and protect it at all times. It was their sole responsibility, to hand on to any future government of this Country. It is now bound in an EU Treaty for strangers to use-without having to even inform any member of a future British Government what foreigners are doing on behalf of the British Crown.
The Royal Prerogative remains central to the way Britain is governed today and as it has been in the past over many years. The Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law which are recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions;
The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject (See case of Nichols v. Nichols, “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”)
The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative statute and it contains the Oath of Allegiance which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP’s and the Judiciary. They are required also to “take into consequence anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties”.
“On 3 July 2007 the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a package of constitutional reforms intended to strengthen democracy and accountability and establish a new relationship between the Government and the people. “ I have highlighted and underlined that little snippet because all that ‘new relationship between the Government and the people’ was blown clean away when he denied the people a say through a referendum on the very constitutional Treaty of Lisbon.
By virtue of the Royal Prerogative, the Sovereign is the source of all justice and jurisdiction is derived from Him/Her. Who then, I ask, has the authority to abolish something that by definition pertains to or emanates from the Sovereign? It is after all the Crown’s Royal Prerogative and it would be abolished without permission of the Crown-I make that clear because the Crown is the ‘constant’- so in the doing of this act, are they abolishing the Crown? Did not a King have to abdicate once in order to preserve the Crown? (See Tony Benn next) Having transferred the Royal Prerogative to the European Union, who will be master after?
Mr Benn,” The reason is the Prime Minister depends upon the Crown for the powers. If you took away the royal prerogatives, the prime minister would have far less political power. Therefore the prime minister needs the Crown for the powers and the Crown needs the prime minister for support for the monarchy, which otherwise is a strange way of governing a country. The only weapon the House of Commons have against the abuse of the prerogative is a motion of confidence. Of course if you passed a motion of no confidence against the prime minister, you would be able to deal with the prerogative but it would be a bit like dealing with a burglar by blowing up an atom bomb: it would be wholly effective but you would be destroyed as well. This is at the heart of this. This comes to the question of the system of government. Very few people realise that the British establishment's loyalty is not to the king or queen but to the Crown. As a boy of 11 I heard Edward VIII's abdication broadcast. The government got rid of a king to preserve the Crown. There is no loyalty to the individual who occupies the post but there is tremendous loyalty to the system because so much power flows from it” Mmmmm! The question must then be asked, exactly where does allegiance lie?
The Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the Common Law, which was recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and so bound by Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by common law and cannot be lawfully infringed by them.
The people too are bound by their Oaths of Allegiance. An Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this country binds each British Subject from the moment they are born, just as if that person has declared so out loud. In return we have the protection of the Crown when abroad. So many people are being given powers to give out instant fines plus much more. However, I would suggest for such powers all persons should be British and all should have made a solemn Oath of Allegiance to the Crown as required by our law and Constitution. All in Britain are still innocent in this land until proven guilty.
I understand that certain members of our Police Force (SOCA) did not have to make an Oath of Allegiance. Sadly and unforgivably, one innocent young man was shot to death by British police yet no one has had to answer for that deed.
I question whether, under our Constitution if the Eurogendarmerie came here equipped with guns whether that would be lawful particularly as subjects of the Crown are no longer allowed to have guns even though our constitutional Bill of Rights said we may. (Unless classed as ‘the EU has competences over our Constitution and laws’-see Treason laws). Surely to have agreed to such a Treaty would be contrary to the Oaths of Allegiance all MP’s make to the British Crown, for are we not taught that, according to R v Thistlewood, 1820 to destroy the Constitution ‘is an act of treason’?
Under the Oaths of Allegiance, the laws in the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 make clear this Country cannot be ruled by ANY foreign Power. This is why we went into two world wars to prevent foreigners from governing us; it was our duty by those solemn Oaths to do so. “No foreign Prince, person, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical of Spiritual within the Realm.” We also have to protect the Crown and the Coronation Oaths so sworn by our Monarch. It is our duty to do so.
I have set out my own reasoning just how ‘easy’ turning us all into REAL EU citizens could take place, and particularly how all the States could come together in the making of one great EU State in which no one separate Nation State would be able to ‘get out’ of that state, as shown in the USA constitution. In having looked to the German Court decision re Lisbon, I find that no Court, no matter how high, can some-how bring in a verdict in favour of the complainant, in exactly the same way as has happened here in the UK when people have tried to stand up for their own Constitution and the British Crown. Yet all those Judges are also bound by those judgments they have made.
Finally, I come to a report which follows on from the paper sent round a couple of weeks ago and my article written in Derek Bennett’s EuroRealist March issue, to what I see as the reason for the deliberate reduction in our Forces-even though many of our forces are losing their lives in Afghanistan.-Yes, deeper and more meaningful EU integration seems to come before our own National Security and the protection and welfare of our Forces fighting in Afghanistan. (See UKNDA below)
I end with this from Bertelsmann Stiftung, Guetersloh, July 2007.
“Without solidarity there is nothing. Indeed, security solidarity among member states is the foundation stone of Europe upon which Europe is established – be it through political integration or intense co-operation between states. The need for such solidarity is self-evident. The European Security Strategy (ESS) emphasizes the “increasing convergence of European interests and the strengthening of mutual solidarity of the EU”. Indeed, for that reason the Constitutional Treaty included a Solidarity Clause (188R) that obliged all EU members to “act jointly in a spirit of solidarity” in the event one of them became “the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster”. Such solidarity in no way suggests an attempt to accelerate political integration through the back door. Rather, it is simply the logical consequence of the internal shape of Europe and the many security challenges Europe faces both internally and externally. In that light, the marked lack of solidarity with respect to fulfilling ESDP capability targets and the financing of ESDP operations is little short of a disgrace”. (See also the SOFA Directive-me)
“Fifty years on from the Treaty of Rome it is time to go back to European basics and revisit the ‘genetic code’ of Europe’s construction. One thing is clear; the EU cannot absorb at one and the same time the effect of enlargement and the consequences of globalisation. Indeed, the interaction of the two is reinforcing the paralysis at the heart of the EU’s mechanisms for action and exacerbating the contradictions and contentions over the finalité of the European project”.
“Consequently, it would be a disaster for global security if the European edifice
began an irreversible process of decay and collapse. And, without a reengagement
of political and security vision to drive the EU forward that is precisely what could happen. If security of the citizens is the first duty of any state it is also the very essence of a state’s identity. It is the same for the Union”.
“Territorial and society integrity is the pre-condition for independent economic and social development and thus the foundation of Europe’s political independence. Without such territorial integrity participation in demanding civil-military security operations will be nigh impossible. Indeed, the ability to project security is intrinsically and inherently linked to the ability to protect society. Therefore, integrity and sovereignty will only be safeguarded if societies are adequately protected. Given the very openness upon which European society is founded no single member-state can assure such security. It is therefore time for autonomous EU territorial security incorporating five elements; missile defence, deterrence, conventional defence, airspace sovereignty and consequence management, including a pan-European plan for the defence of Europe’s critical infrastructure and cyber-Europe. End of quotes.
Ask now, who has or may have Kompetenz-Kompetenz, the Nation States or the European Union? And now ask, are my wild thoughts in the first two of these three articles quite as ‘way out’ as might have seemed at first? I have shown you how, you all know the WHY? But do any of us know ‘If’ or WHEN?
German Court.-Very Long.
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html
Our forces state of un- readiness Well worth reading.
http://www.uknda.org/my_documents/my_files/UK_Defence_Needs_web.pdf
Beyond 2010 European Grand Strategy in a Global Age-Bertelsmann Stiftung, Guetersloh, July 2007-I am not on my own in my thinking.
http://www.emmanouilidis.eu/download/2007_Venusberg_Beyond_2010.pdf
A must read European Council declaration on Strengthening the Common European policy on Security and Defence. Who has not been quite ‘open’ and ‘frank’ eh?
http://www.basicint.org/europe/ESDP/0699-PR_EUdefpol.htm
And up to date 2009 After Ratification of LISBON.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/111253.pdf
****************************************
- War and peace A State, according to the fourth element in Black's definition of this term, is "capable of making war and peace". The EU does not have any such power : it has no army, no common defence, and it does not participate in a military alliance. Nevertheless, the Community and the Union are able to take certain other steps which are considered as unfriendly in international law, for example by imposing a trade embargo or other sanctions on a third State. Moreover, the progressive framing of a common defence policy is explicitly contemplated by the Treaty ([1]), and is now being actively discussed. Mmmmmm ! How things change ! Anne Palmer. 8.3.2010.
([1]) Article 17, paragraph 1, of the EU Treaty: "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, in accordance with the second subparagraph, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide".
Posts
